[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Revising Hou et al, 96 (very very short)
David Marjanovic wrote:
>> Doesn't *Baptornis* still have fingers?
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
>Perhaps. I desperately need better hesperornithiform references.
>
>Mickey Mortimer
>
Alright, for all those who don't want to read the name Feduccia and his book
"The origin and evolution of birds", stop here. Sorry too late. :) But there
is a very good part in this book about Hesperornithiform with good skeletals
of Parahesperornis, Baptornis and Hesperornis.
For Baptornis is a forelimb known with the radius + ulna + hand, although
the latter comprimises of just 2 bones, one possible wrist-bone and the
other a possible metacarpal.
Parahesperornis is derived in the construction of the forelimb in comparison
to Baptornis, although it's humerus is not completely known, making the
ratio's come out right. The drawing shows that it had a more reduced radius
+ ulna + hand, unfortunately, the drawing is not of such good quality to
make it possible to identify the number of digits or anything.
Hesperornis is drawn to have the radius + ulna + hand missing, although this
is from the original drawing by Marsh who didn't discover the further
elements. So it is unclear wether Hesperornis had some remnants of fingers,
my best guess it didn't drawing the evolutionary line from Baptornis ->
Parahesperornis -> Hesperornis. Does anyone know what the number of hand
bones are available for Enaliornis? From what I've heard it is the most
primitive Hesperornithiform, but based on crappy evidence.
Rutger Jansma